elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F4C4C2B.87EEC9B5@cloud9.net>...
[snips for length]
> > > > > Now, try and prove to me that there are no invisible skunks.
> > > >
> > > > As you know, that's an unworkable challenge. A well-known analogy to
> > > > the theist-atheist argument is a court case in which one side says
> > > > there exists a legally binding contract, and the other side says there
> > > > is no contract. Of course, the onus would be entirely on the former to
> > > > prove the contract exists. Now suppose a third, "agnostic" side
> > > > entered the court and says "there *could* be a contract." The agnostic
> > > > must explain how there is a real possibility that the contract exists,
> > > > or be deemed irrelevant to the dispute.
> > >
> > > That's not the way I see it at all, but I'll use your analogy. In
> > > Scottish courts there also exists a verdict of "Not proven". I submit
> > > that the existance of a contract is unproven, and being of a
> > > metaphysical nature, unprovable.
> >
> > Seems like a bit of evasive wordplay. By "metaphysical" you appear to
> > be implying the contract as no tangibility, no testable qualities, no
> > observable impact, no influence or presence. And that's a good
> > definition for "non-existence." How'd you ever pass the metaphysical
> > bar exam?
>
> It doesn't seem so tricky to me. The supposed contract exists in the
> faith of the theists, but can't be conclusively disproven by the
> atheists. While the existence of this contract may be highly
> improbable, it can still be seen as unproven. Isn't it a case of he
> said/ she said? Such cases are dismissed all the time.
>
> So what do you want to do, hang the jury?
Only if I could spare the rope. What would happen in such a case,
though, is that the judge would discard the agnostic's testimony and
rule in favour of the atheist defendant.
> How would you counter the notion of the "Unmoved Mover"?
The Unmoved Mover, like the Design Argument, seems to me a tricked up
version of the First Cause Argument, which didn't make sense to me
even when I was a kid. It amounted to saying: everything has to be
created, so therefore there must be a Creator. But apparently the
Creator doesn't need to be created so there goes the premise of the
argument down the tubes. I suppose that's why religion never stuck to
me in the first place.
> > > There may be some element of gods being an exceptional case, but that is
> > > only because that is the main superstition being shoved down our
> > > collective throats. Also, the farther we range into the metaphysical,
> > > the less room there is for the use of empirical evidence. My common
> > > sense is in place, but I'd rather not waste my time trying to
> > > demonstrate a conviction for which I have no physical proof.
> >
> > "Gods" surely is an exceptional case. You haven't asked me to present
> > an argument against the existence of invisible skunks on the moon, for
> > instance. Precisely because it's "the main superstition being shoved
> > down our collective throats" is why it's particularly odious.
>
> It's just that we're rarely force to take a position vis-a-vis lunar
> ghost skunks. In this society were generally forced to pick one:
> Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. Few hate
> religion as much as I do, having been forced to stew in Catholic school
> against my will. I was an unbeliever from the age of 9 and always a foe
> of the hypocrisy I often found in organized religion. I can be
> considered anti-religious.
>
> So, have you ever gained any converts to your point of view?
I don't try to convert anyone. This atheism v. agnosticism thing just
seemed an interesting point of discussion.
> > > > A problem I perceive with agnosticism is that is conciliatory towards
> > > > religious faith, which is still a pervasive deleterious force.
> > > > Agnosticism is an fuzzyily-defined position that may encompass those
> > > > who are tilting towards faith and those who simply wish to be
> > > > non-confrontational with religionists. It seems impotent to
> > > > scandalize, insult, or damage religion.
> > >
> > > Lets not confuse "weak" and "strong" agnosticism. There are different
> > > flavors of atheism as well. All a strong agnostic is saying, is that
> > > the existence of gods can't be conclusively proven. I doesn't have to
> > > imply any fraternizing w/ religion. I don't feel like I'm going out on
> > > a limb whem I say I don't believe in gods. Neither do i mince words
> > > when I declare religions to be merely sociological and psychological constructs.
> >
> > If by "conclusively" you mean with complete certainty, I thought we
> > agreed that wasn't necessary. A proof has only to be sufficiently
> > convincing for a conclusion to be made, and propositions like
> > "invisible skunks on the moon" or "God is Mickey Mouse" are
> > disprovable in my opinion. An irony of the agnostic position as you've
> > presented it is that while it hopes to be rooted in principles of
> > science it allows the possibility of phenomena that, if they existed,
> > would annul the foundations of science.
>
> Let's say then that I want to see the evidence with which I might defend
> the position of "strong" atheism. I find that "strong" agnosticism best
> allows me to be a non believer while "not pretend(ing) that conclusions
> are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Anyway, my
> position would be that everything lies w/in the purview of science since
> everything is a part of nature and is thus natural disallowing anything
> supernatural that might upset the applecart.
>
> But science is limited by what we currently know, and the infinite
> number of things which we do not. Our rules and laws work under certain
> definable circumstances, but not neccesarily all cicumstances. Science
> is adaptible to new information and understanding and is not adverse to
> suspending judgement for a time.
Yes and no. It seems to me the principle of equivalence doesn't allow
for supernatural phenomena like gods, and if science overturned that
principle it would essentially be throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
> > > I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that there are
> > > things that I don't know, that no one knows, that no one may ever know.
> > > Such as... what existed before time? How did time come into existence?
> > > If time always existed, how is that possible?
> >
> > No argument. These are perplexing questions, but irrelevant. Do they
> > make the question of the existence of gods more perplexing? Not
> > really. The latter question is fairly simple in comparison.
>
> Not irrelevent... this is what gods were invented for... to answer the
> unanswerable questions. Where do we come from and where are we going?
> The difference is that modern man can see farther than neolithic man and
> so wonders what caused the "big bang" (if it occured) rather than what
> causes the rain to fall.
>
> I'm not working towards a "supreme being" model here, but I find that
> the mechanics of existence is exactly what lies behind all the creaky
> religious constructions. I find the human model of a "big daddy" to be
> limited exactly because of its human scale. Without being interested in
> a god modelled universe I must still wonder at the paradoxical nature of
> existance. I don't think humankind will ever have the final answer to
> the ultimate questions of existence.
The questions are irrelevant, though, because we've been looking at
how one evaluates the *answers* to such questions, and the complexity
of the questions isn't a factor. The question may be: why does the
Earth revolve? Gee, we may never know, but the atheist says one can
chuck certain answers such as "pixie dust causes it to spin" while the
agnostic says "well we can't discount the possibility of pixie dust."
The theist, to paraphrase Sade, answers a mystery with an even bigger
mystery. In effect, that's no answer at all, much less an
unsatisfactory one.
> In the meantime there is plenty of interesting information to be
> acquired locally, and by locally I mean as much of the universe as we
> can set our eyes on.
>
> > > Sure, there are many interesting theories and mathematical constructs,
> > > but how do we test them? Can the small limited beings on this tiny
> > > world really conceive of the infinite, or are we limited to what we can
> > > actually see and touch... light travelling for billions of years or
> > > matter invisible to the naked eye. The farther we travel from places
> > > which have human scale the less certain we may be.
> > >
> > > Perhaps humanity will evolve into a position to answer these questions,
> > > but for now they are beyond our ken.
> >
> > Again, there are things there are no good answers for, but also things
> > which there *are* good answers for. It seems to me ingenuous to insist
> > a thing can't be known until demonstrated beyond even an unreasonable
> > doubt. Were that the case, "know" may as well be marked "archaic" in
> > the dictionary.
>
> Okay, so say a theist, lets make it a Hindu comes up and says: So, you
> say there are no gods... prove it to me? How do you do it?
I wouldn't. I have no interest in spending my time trying to prove
such a thing. He can sort it out on his own. As I think I've
indicated, god arguments long ago lost any entertainment value for me,
and they're about the last place I'd want to revisit.
-- Parry
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 |
|